Well-known software developer specializing in large-scale database-driven web sites. Usually I use Perl. I speak at too many conferences. https://allaroundtheworld.fr/
This is something that was pointed out to me (by Sawyer? can't recall) a while ago as an unintended benefit. In short, if I wanted to repurpose syntax such as my Dog $spot, I'd be stepping on existing syntax. However, by creating a new syntax with an unambiguous scope and is guaranteed not to run on older versions of Perl (short of something really bizarre going on), we have a brand new syntax which is guaranteed not to clash with existing usage.
Further, because its scope is well-defined, we can play around with new syntax in that scope. Just adding a has function or a method keyword to the language could break all sorts of existing code that is already trying to do something like that. But by doing it in a new scope, we're safe.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I don't understand the argument. How is "it can't compile" backwards compatible? It's new syntax that should blow up in earlier versions. And it does.
Aside from that, a class declaration with / without a block seems to blow up the same way:
So what is the argument?
This is something that was pointed out to me (by Sawyer? can't recall) a while ago as an unintended benefit. In short, if I wanted to repurpose syntax such as
my Dog $spot, I'd be stepping on existing syntax. However, by creating a new syntax with an unambiguous scope and is guaranteed not to run on older versions of Perl (short of something really bizarre going on), we have a brand new syntax which is guaranteed not to clash with existing usage.Further, because its scope is well-defined, we can play around with new syntax in that scope. Just adding a
hasfunction or amethodkeyword to the language could break all sorts of existing code that is already trying to do something like that. But by doing it in a new scope, we're safe.